District 9

An alien mothership appears stranded over Johannesburg. The starving aliens can not leave, so they are located in a sprawling shanty town beneath the mothership. Twenty years on, crime and squalor are rife in the shanty town, and there is rising tension between humans and aliens. A large corporation, simply called “Multi National United” is hired by the UN to shift the aliens to a new camp, further from humanity. The corporation, of course, has weapons and genetic engineering projects that would benefit from the exploitation of the aliens, who come to be called “prawns” by the humans.

Filmed as a documentary, with hand-held cameras and supposed CCTV footage, the movie follows around a middle level bureaucrat whose job it is to organize the relocation. Played superbly by newcomer Sharlto Copley, Wikus Van De Merwe is a friendly, largely uncritical functionary, entirely unprepared for what subsequently happens. Without giving away too much, he quickly becomes infected with some alien chemical that begins to transform him into a prawn. Thus we get to see things from an alien perspective, and come to sympathize with them, through his eyes.

It is not a perfect movie by any means. The final half hour plays too much to convention, with several firefights (which are filmed in marvellously claustrophobic fashion), and a human-alien friendship complete with cute alien child.  That said, it is blast from beginning to end. It mixes up genres, shifting from sci-fi to horror to action and back. Much of it is genuinely disturbing, and some of it is very funny. The analogy to apartheid is there, and the satire is often very sharp, but it is not heavy-handed. If you go wanting only social satire, you will be disappointed, but if you just let the scenes of aliens picking through the garbage in the shanty town, or the grotesque transformation of Wikus, or the glorious battles between Nigerian crime gangs, multinational mercenaries and a giant robot flow over you, it will be time well spent.

32 thoughts on “District 9”

  1. Second, third, fourth Chris’ rec. I want to write more, when I have more time, but as a sci-fan and an aficionado of South African politics/culture, this film blew me away.

    Copley is fantastic. It’s extraordinarily confident and surefooted in its tone, which never goes for easy beats (even that cute alien kid has some intriguing complexity).

    The film’s commitment to generic conventions, however artfully deployed, reminded me of debates we’ve had (re Children of Men, for instance), and got me wondering about how this far more pop-centric film will fly as an exemplar the politics of great pop cultural forms. (I think it dazzles.)

    And then–inevitably?–I wondered what gets lost. I heard some sci-fi geeks in the packed house complaining about the plot but liking the production design, the irony of the film’s use of real townships as stand-in for the fictional District perhaps lost in the savvy consumer’s critique of design? Recent outbursts of xenophobic violence in South Africa were buried on the backpages of only the big national papers, barely mentioned in the blogosphere, absent in cable news. Something still gets through–the allegory is (as Chris noted) handled with nuance and clarity–but the rich, detailed complexities resonant with real social political circumstances …

    I’ve got to teach this.

  3. I think it dazzles as well, and I have to say I so appreciated the final half hour. I needed a few recognizable generic conventions, because the first two-thirds of this film truly unnerved me (in the best possible way). I loved the way the film worked to shift spectatorial empathy and identification (though I’m not entirely sure the audience with whom I saw the film were on the same page . . . lots of laughter aimed at the “prawns”; and, I must admit, my empathy was with the “prawns” from the very beginning). There is a lot to unpack here. Sitting just behind a Somali family made the film resonate even more (and I was very interested in their response, but damn if they didn’t check their cell phones every five minutes).

    I might push back at the film’s treatment of Africans. Blood thirty (literally) Nigerian gang lords seemed to play straight into some discomforting stereotypes, but maybe I’m being overtly sensitive. Copely was fantastic and, like Reynolds, I imagine his work will not be readily celebrated because he makes it all seem effortless.

    Interesting that this film is making such a big impact (economically as well as awards talk). The ending provides audience friendly payback, but the journey there is hellish.

  7. I enjoyed this, in spite of the fact that the copy I grabbed, via bit torrent, had Russian subtitles. Or was that in the original? Like Mike’s sci-fi geeks, I thought the production design was terrific (Blomkamp has more experience in visual effects than in directing).

    Did anyone notice that the last 30 minutes or so was not simply a shift toward the conventional, but a shift in narration as well? Gone is any attempt to ground footage in some real source (the MNU documentary, security cameras, cable news). I’m reminded of that Monty Python sketch: once Wikus becomes a fugitive, who’s filming him now? The talking heads largely disappear as well. I mean, it’s a completely different film, those last 30 minutes or so. A director needs to know how to handle things like this. It’s like the Sgt. Pepper album. The first two songs stick with the idea of a fictional band, and then “sod it!”

    Okay, I’m drifting. I was kind of shocked by the film, and I don’t know how to take the portrayal of a Nigerian gangster as, if not an outright cannibal (the aliens are an entirely different species) then certainly savage and bloodthirsty. Hey, better idea: same film, but the ones in District 9 are humans. The aliens are the bad guys. Better? That way, the Afrikaners, although doing the same thing the humans are in Blomkamp’s film, are the nasty, ugly, roach-like thingys. Hah! Now there’s some critique of apartheid for you.

    And, well, since Predator, all movie aliens look alike to me.

    Still, thumbs up. But best picture? I don’t know.

  8. don’t share people’s enthusiasm over this. found its metaphor for apartheid/marginalization/ghettoization etc. to be thick and pedestrian. found the action scenes boring. still gave it three stars, BECAUSE I MANAGED TO FINISH IT. is it possible, i ask, that one adjusts one’s expectations (i don’t mean lowers, i mean adjusts) to fit a specific genre? in other words, it is possible i didn’t like this film because i have zero exposure to horror/sci-fi/etc.? same as members of this club won’t like women’s films? i wonder. and ponder. and wander.

  9. Gio–

    I wasn’t aware that I didn’t like the genre of “women’s films,” whatever they are exactly. But it’s good to know….Does Barbara Stanwyck count?

  11. michael and jeff. i propose you do a little going through this blog and do a women’s films vs. other films count. then get back to me. and no, michael, classics don’t count, sorry.

  13. gio–I’m still not quite sure I follow. By that logic, one might say that you don’t like American films, popular films, genre films or any film that, say, more than 5 people may have seen….

    Burn!

  14. Female directors? Female protagonists? Female issues? Female Trouble? This slide show will make you laugh/wince.

    Pick a film, Gio? Pick three. Let’s get the movie club going again. We all watch a woman’s film and then discuss, discuss, discuss.

  18. Gio’s right. There’s not much here devoted to women’s films. But I hope that doesn’t mean we won’t like them, that we refuse to like them, or whatever. Generally, I find it easier to access music by women. I admit the music in my iTunes is overwhelmingly male. But I have a lot more music by women than I have films by women. I never really thought about it, but now I wonder if our culture is far more generous with its ear than with its eye, as far as what is produced by women for the media industry. I can rattle off dozens of women musicians I regularly listen to, but can barely name more than a few women filmmakers with whom I am familiar. But having just typed that, it seems a liberal male cop-out. “I just don’t get a chance to see as many women’s films as I would like…it’s not my fault, really, it’s just that our culture”…blah blah blah.

    All us males would be lying if we didn’t admit it’ll take some effort. So I second Jeff’s motion, that we ask Gio to get the balls rolling (D’oh!)…sorry…ball rolling and suggest a film?

  19. There’s already some interesting confusion here. Is a “woman’s film” a film made by a woman? In which case, Near Dark is a “woman’s film.” Or is it a film that is sympathetic toward women and makes them central to its narrative–in which case, George Cukor and Fassbinder do more for women’s films than Nora Ephron. and maybe John’s playlist on his iTunes is just girly? yesterday I downloaded something by “She and Him,” god help me. I look forward to the choice, though I hate women’s films.

  20. if looks like a woman’s film and sounds like a woman’s film, it’s a woman film. classics don’t count. directors don’t count. hurt locker, though directed by a woman, is not a woman’s film. boys on the side, though directed by a man, is a woman’s film.

  21. I can’t figure out if this definition is opportunistic or essentialist, but whatever it is, I’m dubious about a genre defined by preferences.

  22. Well, I do think there’s something worthwhile to be said–particularly in relation to a category like “women’s film”–about genre as defined more by audience — who tends to see (and who tends not to see) a film is a pretty reliable marker for certain “kinds” of film. Gio’s opening seems more of a provocation than a definition, and her point is well-taken… I don’t have time to write much now, but let’s open this on another thread.

  24. Here is my opportunity to once again champion Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Given your definition, Gio, I’d have to say Fatal Attraction counts. Fassbinder?!? Michael’s getting all Film Comment on our collective asses. Well, in the best tradition of artsy European cinema, let’s watch Jeanne Dielman: 23, quai du Commerce 1080 Bruxelles. I’ve got a Criterion disc just dying to be played. Gio, what did you think of the latest Jane Campion? It is a somewhat reductive return to form (if by form I mean The Piano) but I was taken by its central character and moved to mistiness during the final moments.

  26. How could anyone hope to outdo Joan Crawford in Mildred Pierce ? who plays the horrific daughter? “Get out. Get out before I kill you!”

  28. I would have thought Disney would squash the idea of one of their “stars” playing a murderous, ungrateful demon seed. What’s next, Miley Cyrus as Ms. 45?

  31. I’d be up for the Ackerman–would give me an excuse to buy another Criterion DVD….but I haven’t noticed anybody else responding so far.

Leave a Reply